Umm..WTF is Kerry doing?!? - Page 3

But it's 100% dishonest of you to pretend that it means Kerry didn't earn it. The commanding officer said most of those things were stamped with a pre-made signature, so this officer saying he never saw the paper is meaningless. Meaningless at least in the context you're portraying it.

Try and be honest and how about we all try and learn something rather than hiding the facts and the truth.

Don't you guys think that the real problem with Kerry is nothing he has done in the Senate supports his being tough on terrorism?

Now we can talk about votes being miscontrued this way or that, but the reality is that if Kerry had created bills or even voted for bills that addressed this issue he would be declaring them from the mountain tops.

Even if Kerry were a complete pacifict, there is really nothing wrong with declaring that he has a different way of attempting to solve the world's problems. At least then he could convincingly argue for his actions and beliefs. However the point is that he really is attempting to misrepresent himself and others are calling him on it.

The real problem is Kerry isn't tough on terrorism or even especially fond of defense spending. So he has to convince us he would be by recalling what he did 30 years ago.

The reason we can't get off thirty years ago is because then we have to actually talk about Kerry and what he has done in the Senate. Kerry could change the topic to that very easily. Kerry could simply say, I will promote X just like I did in 1996 when I voted for Y bill.

But the point is that he cannot say that because he has voted against everything that has to do with defense and protecting America. Kerry would love to change the discussion but he can't, he's the one who decided on using thirty years ago to justify today. Anything talked about regarding him in public office or service just makes him look worse. He choose to present his strongest case, and sadly, serving in Vietnam was it.

Nick

Where the fuck did you get that? My point was that the Republicans are BETTER at using the press than the Democrats are. How is that an insult?

It's questionable whether those bills really "protected" or "defended" our country-- and a whole host of other related questions. But it's gotta be completely wrong to think he never voted with a majority of Republicans on defense bills. I'd imagine you'd consider those bills to protect and defend our country-- so you'd have to limit that claim. THINK, man. THINK!

You need to do some thinking ShawnJ. Kerry didn't even vote to support the first Gulf War in Bush I. You know the one war that was like what he claims to support and want to do in Iraq today. International support of our allies, U.N resolutions passed, clearly delineated aggression, etc.

If he had a clear record of supporting defense spending, he would present it. Like I said, it is the easiest way of getting off Vietnam and onto another topic. But he can't do it because he has a clear history of support nothing but cuts to defense spending.

Nick

SDW is perfectly right: George Bush is winning the campaign, Kerry's going to lose the election. The Bush campaign is prepared to stoop far, far lower than the Kerry campaign.

Team Bush do not give a fuck. They're going to win.

Agreed. And it seems that *today*, after adding Joe Lockhart and James Carville to his staff, that is beginning. Word on the street is that the crux of that 90 minute conversation with Clinton amounted to little more than Clinton saying WOULD YOU STFU ABOUT VIETNAM ALREADY?!

I find it interesting how we condemn hateful smear tactics from both campaigns, yet freely engage in the same acts as we posts on these forums (in jest or not).


Actually, I think you'll find this is why neither candidate has been much into specifics, but all about the rhetoric. Both men have questionable records (all military service aside). If one is unable to admit there are glaring inconsistencies, misguided judgements, and lack of forethought in the political past of both candidates, then they are simply being disingenuous.

This is one of the vaguest campaigns I've ever seen, on both front. Which is why I eagerly look forward to the debates. I am hoping that we will finally get some real substance from both men. Hoping, but not expecting.

You bought into the blitz . . . no, not 'both have questionable records' . . . as far as I can tell. and I have ehard both sides . . . only one has a questionable record . . . the other record is NOT questionable AT ALL once you realize the smear tactics were lies lies lies.

Did you bother to read my post? How about this part: "all military service aside"?

I do not question Kerry's military service, or congressional testimony thereafter.

What I said was that there are plent of things in Bush's record as governor and president as well as in Kerry's record as a senator that people who disagree with them can legitimately question.